The languagelab library letter writing

169 85 0
  • Loading ...

Tài liệu hạn chế xem trước, để xem đầy đủ mời bạn chọn Tải xuống

Tài liệu liên quan

Thông tin tài liệu

Ngày đăng: 14/09/2019, 15:40

Letter Writing Benjamins Current Topics Special issues of established journals tend to circulate within the orbit of the subscribers of those journals For the Benjamins Current Topics series a number of special issues have been selected containing salient topics of research with the aim to widen the readership and to give this interesting material an additional lease of life in book format Volume Letter Writing Edited by Terttu Nevalainen and Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen These materials were previously published in the Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5:2 (2004) Letter Writing Edited by Terttu Nevalainen University of Helsinki Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen University of Turku John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdamâ•›/â•›Philadelphia TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Letter writing / edited by Terttu Nevalainen, Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen p cm (Benjamins current topics, ISSN 1874-0081 ; v 1) Letters Letter writing I Nevalainen, Terttu II Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa PN4400.L44â•…â•… 2007 806.6 dc22 2007004709 ISBN 978-90-272-2231-2 (hb : alk paper) © 2007 – John Benjamins B.V No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher John Benjamins Publishing Co · P.O Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa "bio"> "intro"> "tii"> "ber"> "woo"> "tan"> "nev"> "bij"> "val"> "fit"> Table of contents About the authors Introduction Terttu Nevalainen Power and politeness: Languages and salutation formulas in correspondence between Sweden and the German Hanse Seija Tiisala Letters: A new approach to text typology Alexander T Bergs Text in context: A critical discourse analysis approach to Margaret Paston Johanna L Wood Intertextual networks in the correspondence of Lady Katherine Paston Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen vii 13 27 47 73 Inside and out: Forms of address in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century letters Minna Nevala 89 Yours sincerely and yours affectionately: On the origin and development of two positive politeness markers Annemieke Bijkerk 115 “The pleasure of receiving your favour”: The colonial exchange in eighteenth-century natural history Ellen Valle 131 Book Review Susan Fitzmaurice: The Familiar Letter in Early Modern English: A Pragmatic Approach Reviewed by Monika Fludernik 155 About the authors Alexander Bergs is professor and chair of English Language and Linguistics at the University of Osnabrück His main areas of research include historical (socio-) linguistics, language change theory, new media language, and the morphosyntax of present-day English and its varieties He is the author of Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics (Mouton de Gruyter, 2005), Modern Scots (2nd ed., Lincom Europa, 2005), and the editor of Constructions and Language Change (to appear with Mouton de Gruyter) After having finished a project on “The expression of futurity in contemporary English”, he now concentrates on the preparation of a digital corpus of authentic, informal Late Modern English Annemieke Bijkerk obtained an MA in English Language and Literature from the University of Leiden in 2001 Her thesis was about politeness strategies in the opening and closing formulas of Jonathan Swift’s letters and those of his correspondents In 2002, she spent some time at the Research Unit for Variation and Change in English of the University of Helsinki, Finland, where she obtained the data used in this article Monika Fludernik teaches at the University of Freiburg in Germany She is the author of The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction (Routledge, 1993) and Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology (Routledge, 1996), and has edited and coedited special issues of Style (“Second-Person Narrative” 1994; “German Narratology” 2004), EJES (“Language and Literature” 1998), and Poetics Today (“Metaphor and Beyond: New Cognitive Developments” 1999) She has also published in the areas of postcolonial theory, the sublime, and prison texts Minna Nevala, PhD, is a researcher at the Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English, University of Helsinki She is currently working on her post-doctoral project “We and others: The socio-pragmatics of referential terms and expressions in Early and Late Modern English, 1500–1900”, funded by the Academy of Finland She is also one of the compilers of the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC) and published her doctoral dissertation Address in Early English Correspondence: Its Forms and Socio-Pragmatic Functions in 2004 Her research interests include historical socio-pragmatics, text analysis, and editing of letter material viii About the authors Terttu Nevalainen is Professor of English Philology at the University of Helsinki and the director of the Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG) funded by the Academy of Finland and the University of Helsinki Her current research focuses on historical sociolinguistics, Renaissance English and the socio-pragmatics of letter writing She is the author of “Early Modern English Lexis and Semantics”, in Volume of The Cambridge History of the English Language (CUP 1999), Historical Sociolinguistics; Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England (Longman 2003; with H Raumolin-Brunberg) and An Introduction to Early Modern English (EUP 2006) Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen is Senior Research Fellow at the Department of English, University of Turku, Finland Her major fields of interest are discourse linguistics and pragmatics, applied to both historical and present-day material She is the author of Collaborating towards Coherence: Lexical Cohesion in English Discourse (John Benjamins, 2006) Her current research deals with mediated interaction in English from carriers and snailmail to the internet and e-mail Seija Tiisala, University Lecturer Emerita at the Department of Scandinavian Languages and Literature at the University of Helsinki, specializes in lexicography and Old Swedish morphology Ellen Valle is Senior Lecturer at the Department of English, University of Turku, Finland Her main research interest is in academic and scientific writing, particularly from a historical perspective Currently her primary research focus is on the writing of natural history in the eighteenth century, especially in a trans-Atlantic context (between Europe and North America) Johanna L Wood is associate professor in English linguistics at the Department of English, University of Aarhus Her main areas of interest are in historical linguistics; syntactic theory; variation, change and standardisation in English; and theories of language change She is currently researching the structure of nominals in the history of English Introduction Terttu Nevalainen University of Helsinki On the history of letter writing Letter writing has always been situated activity Take, for instance, the following translation of a cuneiform letter despatched over 3700 years ago The writer, BahdiLim, was the prefect of the royal palace of Mari and the recipient, my lord, was Zimri-Lim, the last king of Mari (1779–1757 B.C.), the ancient Mesopotamian city and kingdom situated on the Euphrates River The letter was written to accompany another letter containing a message from a female prophet.1 (1) Speak to my lord: Thus Bahdi-Lim, your servant: The city of Mari, the palace and the district are well Another matter: Ahum, the priest, has brought me the hair and the garment fringe of a prophetess, and her complete report is written on the tablet that Ahum has sent to my lord Herewith I have conveyed the tablet of Ahum together with the hair and a fringe of the garment of the prophetess to my lord (ARM 26 201; translation from Akkadian by Nissinen (2003: 34)) To the extent that there are universals in letter writing, they would include at least the following A letter consists of written communication typically addressed to one or more named recipients, and identifies the sender and conveys a message; even if it is just to say that the message (including its authentication!) is included in an enclosure, as is the case in (1) The material circumstances of letter writing have naturally changed with time, as have its discursive practices A basic means of written communication, letter writing has contributed to the rise of other, more specialised genres intended for larger audiences such as the newspaper, the scientific article and the epistolary novel (Beebee 1999, Raymond, ed., 2002, Valle 1999) Specialisation as such is not a recent phenomenon in the history of letter writing, which has generated diverse epistolary subgenres ranging from the New Testament letters to medieval verse love epistles (Camargo 1991) As a written genre, letter writing has to be learned In the past its basic princi- 146 Ellen Valle The Register Books of the Royal Society are in fact filled with reports of the display of a specimen in a meeting or its presentation to the Society Most of these specimens ended up in the collections of wealthy patrons This material circulation is then further transformed into codified knowledge, as shown, for instance, in George Edwards’ Natural History from 1751 Each plate is associated with a brief descriptive text, which usually includes the provenance of the particular specimen on which the drawing is based The following examples serve to illustrate on the one hand the flow of specimens from the periphery to the centre, on the other the system of circulation, in the metropolis, of specimens, patronage and knowledge:15 The Black Parrot from Madagascar: This bird was first at Sir Charles Wager’s and was presented by him to his Grace the Duke of Richmond, who employed me to make a draught of it for him, and permitted me to take another for myself The Arabian Bustard: This bird was kept alive many years by my honoured patron Sir Hans Sloane, Bart at his house in London, whose goodness always gave me free leave to draw any curious thing he had in his possession This bird was brought from Mocha in Arabia Felix, and presented to Sir Hans Sloane, by Clarles [sic] Dubois, Esq; treasurer to the India Company It is as part of this system of circulation — of specimens, texts, information and knowledge — that the Bartram-Collinson correspondence can partly be understood Alexander Garden and John Ellis John Ellis (1714–76) was an Irish-born linen merchant He became agent for West Florida in 1764 and for Dominica in 1770, which gave him easy contact with suppliers of specimens in these areas Like Collinson, Ellis imported many seeds, but he was particularly interested in the transportation of live plants; in 1770 he published a booklet entitled Directions for bringing over Seeds and Plants Ellis was very active in natural history and Royal Society circles throughout the 1750s and 1760s: in addition to his work on the corallines, he published a number of papers in the Philosophical Transactions Alexander Garden (1730–1791) was a Scotsman and a university-educated physician In 1752 he travelled to Charles Town, South Carolina, where he married and settled down to practice medicine He remained in North America most of his life Garden had a large correspondence, both within North America and across the Atlantic (see Figure 2) In addition to his medical practice and his work in natural history, Garden also took an interest in silk culture, viniculture and the cultivation of indigo in South Carolina He was elected to the Royal Society in 1773.16 The Garden correspondence published in Smith (1821) includes 55 letters written by Garden to Ellis and twelve letters from Ellis to Garden This epistolary exchange extends from 1755 to 1768, thus coinciding with the last years of the “The pleasure of receiving your favour” Bartram/Collinson correspondence The nature of the correspondence is in some ways different: first of all, Garden himself was a European (a Scot), secondly he had an academic and scientific education, and thirdly the financial relationship was less important What Garden craves is knowledge, in the form of books; particularly in the early letters this is mentioned very often In particular Linnæus’s works and Philip Miller’s Gardeners Dictionary are crucial, since without these basic reference works he is unable to identify or classify the plants he encounters.17 Copies of the Philosophical Transactions are also very much desired; they enable him to keep up with new knowledge and ideas, and probably help to create a sense of intellectual community for this educated Scot in the colonial wilderness Garden is also often critical; he positions himself as a fully authorised member of the community, entitled to pass evaluative judgment on the work of others: I have received Dr Pallas’s two volumes some time ago, and wrote you before what occurred to me in reading him I am but a very novice in all these marine productions, so that I can say little on this head, though I must observe that, as far as I could judge, his latinity is the best part of his book As to the quarto, I really think it is so glaring and gross a catchpenny, that I am amazed how he could have the effrontery to publish it, and attack Monsieur de Buffon, whose labours in that way must him eternal honour, and confer infinite obligations on all the lovers of Natural History (Garden to Ellis July 1768; Smith 1828: I:564–567) There are two aspects of Garden’s letters which are particularly prominent: his constant reference to other correspondents in the network, and his involvement in the eighteenth-century project of species classification and naming In other words, Garden, much more than Bartram, positions himself as not merely providing the raw material for science but as producing knowledge itself He also uses nomenclature to confer gifts on his friends and on members of the natural history community His suggestions, however, are by no means always accepted The complexity of the taxonomic project is suggested by the following example: This Summer Mr George Saxby shewed me a list from you, which I helped him to procure, by giving him our country names for these you mentioned, and assisting him to some seeds, particularly the Magnolia, which I gave chiefly as I imagined he could send his much sooner than I could send mine, though after all they only went by the same vessel He likewise sent you some of the Schlosseria or a new genus of the Palm tree I shall send you its characters, and shall leave it to you to call it either the Schlosseria or Halea, in honour of my much esteemed correspondent Dr Hales Some time ago I called our wild Horehound Halea, but I am afraid that there is too nigh a relation between that and the Eupatorium to separate them, so that I would denominate this either by his name or by Dr Huxham’s both which gentlemen I think greatly merit every mark of esteem which not only I, but every lover of science can confer Poor indeed is this, but it 147 148 Ellen Valle is at least a testimony of a grateful mind Some time since I called the Solanum triphyllum of Mr Catesby, Huxhamia; but since I received the Species Plantarum, I find that Linnæus has called the Trillium, for which reason I would willingly join either of these names to so beautiful a plant as this, which from proper and strict examination I am certain is a new genus You shall have its characters, and then you may name by either of them with my approbation (Garden to Ellis, 1756; Smith 1821: I:365–366 Italics in original.) Where the main source of tension and unbalance in the Collinson/Bartram correspondence is in money, in the Ellis/Garden correspondence (as well as in Garden’s other correspondence) it tends to be over scientific status While Garden positioned himself as a fully competent member of the community, his location at the periphery rather than the European centre meant that this was not necessarily accepted by others A full exploration of this claim needs further work; some evidence, however, is offered by the fact that when Garden’s information is presented by Ellis, first as a report in meetings of the Royal Society and subsequently in printed form in the Philosophical Transactions, it is reported in indirect discourse: These two specimens of a remarkable kind of animal, which I have the honour to lay before this Royal Society, I received last summer from Dr Alexander Garden, of Charles-Town South Carolina, who says, it is evidently a new genus not yet taken notice of by naturalists, and that it appears to him, to come between the Muræna and the Lacerta The natives call it by the name of Mud-Inguana [sic] … During this state of uncertainty, I forwarded to Dr Linnæus, of Upsal, at Dr Garden’s request, his account of the largest specimen, and at the same time, sent him one of the smaller specimens preserved in spirits; desiring his opinion, for Dr Garden’s, as well as my own, satisfaction About the latter end of January last, I was favoured with an answer from the Professor, dated Upsal, December 27, 1765, wherein he says, “I received Dr Garden’s very rare two-footed animal … [20 lines verbatim quotation, in English; translation from Latin?] [postscript:] In a letter lately received from Dr Garden, he mentions one remarkable property in this animal, which is, that his servant endeavouring …; he further says, that he had lately had … and that he never saw one with more than two feet; so that he is fully convinced, that is quite a new genus of the animal kingdom (An Account of an Amphibious Bipes; by John Ellis, Esq; F R S To the Royal Society Phil Trans 56: 189 (1766).) Linnæus, as the unquestioned grand old man18 of European natural history, is allowed to speak in his own voice; Garden, as a colonial scientist, is reported in indirect discourse Further exploration of this issue, comparing the original letters, the reports in the Register Books and the published versions, will add to our understanding both of relationships within the discourse community and the construction of eighteenth-century natural history "val-r12"> “The pleasure of receiving your favour” Between private and public: Epistolary texts in the Philosophical Transactions Irmscher (1999: 14–15) points to the distinction made in classical rhetoric between epistola negotialis and epistola familiaris In his discussion of nature writing in colonial north America, he refers to the existing epistolary tradition in science writing: the influence of this tradition on the fashionable eighteenth-century pursuit of botany became visible in publications such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Lettres élémentaires sur la botanique (1771–1773) We would be mistaken to believe that Collinson and Bartram, simply because they were scientific autodidacts and literary amateurs, used the letter form without self-consciousness Bartram, for one, realized that all his observations were of potential interest to the Royal Society, of which Collinson was an active member, and he knew that his friend would edit and publish whatever he thought could be of interest in their correspondence (Irmscher 1999: 15.) This is certainly a valid point, as far as observations on natural history as such are concerned, and indeed there are some letters which have obviously been written with quasi-public circulation and ultimate publication in mind A great majority of the letters, however, consist of much more than natural history; they range over a wide variety of themes, and construct — on both sides of the correspondence — a wide variety of positions, private and public It is significant that in the letters (particularly those by Collinson) no hard and fast line can be drawn between those parts of the letters dealing with natural history and those dealing with other themes The letters were clearly written at odd free moments, and seem to form almost a stream of consciousness In this respect Bartram’s letters are more carefully constructed, and some parts were clearly written as separate reports or descriptions, with a more formal and public audience in mind; this, however, was not necessarily a matter of publication in print but of presentation at a meeting of the Royal Society — in fact, at least in the seventeenth century this amounted to “publication” according to the ideas of the Society (cf Johns 2003) On the other hand, circulating the letters among a private network would not necessarily be considered “publication” To what extent these ideas persisted in the eighteenth century, when publication in print had become more commonplace, needs further investigation A relatively large number of Bartram’s letters were “published” by Collinson in this looser sense What this meant was that he presented them in the regular weekly meetings of the Society; they were read aloud, followed by discussion Both the letter itself and the discussion were recorded, often in full and verbatim, in the minutes Thus the letters participated in several different discourses located at the borderline between public and private First, there was the quasi-private epistolary 149 "val-r18"> 150 Ellen Valle discourse, with letters circulating among members of the community Second was the oral discourse of reading and discussion at the meetings of the Royal Society, which were in principle private but were open to invited and qualified guests Yet a third was the recording of this spoken discourse in the written but non-public reports of the meetings, the Register Books of the Society (See Fig 1.) Bartram’s letters tend to differ according to whether they were deliberately written for circulation/publication or were entirely private The first type, however, may also include personal matter, which was usually edited out by Collinson before he presented it to the Royal Society This is exemplified by the very first letter in Bartram (1992), the report on the rattlesnake (see Section 4.2): the letter basically consists of the factual report, but it includes phrases directed to Collinson personally, such as I send you and I wish you would make Inquiry about it, which will oblige yours / John Bartram In general, letters published in the Philosophical Transactions were edited at least orthographically and typographically: spelling and capitalisation were often “modernised” and made more consistent, italics and/or small capitals were added for species and proper names, paragraphing was added or changed and headings and metatextual signposting were introduced.19 Often, however, it is impossible to distinguish changes made by the recipient of the letter, by the editor (the Secretary of the Royal Society) and the printer: an example of this ambiguity, based on close examination of a manuscript letter containing editorial amendments, is discussed in Valle (1999: 246) General conclusion: The “colonial exchange” The term “exchange” is often used in speaking of imperial and colonial natural history The first use of the term in this context evidently goes back to 1972, when Alfred Crosby spoke of the Columbian exchange with regard to the exchange of species and pathogens between the Old and the New World A more recent use is Alan Frost’s (1996) antipodean exchange What is happening in the correspondence described in this article can be termed a colonial exchange, analogous to the colonial relationship described by economists The colonies produce raw materials, which are appropriated by the colonising power: at the centre these raw materials are processed and converted into finished goods, which are re-exported — at a profit — back to the colonies What is being produced at the periphery is the raw material for the creation of scientific knowledge: specimens, descriptions and drawings, along with what Collinson refers to as “country names” (i.e vernacular names in English) What is produced at the centre is systematic knowledge: names, taxonomies and natural systems, with a Latin nomenclature These are then re-exported to the colonies in the form of publications: books and journals The colonial "val-r9"> "val-r7"> "val-r15"> "val-r3"> “The pleasure of receiving your favour” collectors can and use these books to attempt to classify and name their plants themselves: but the suggestion always has to be submitted to someone in Europe for final approval, and is by no means always accepted This — along with the construction of the sense of community, and with genuine friendship and affection — is what the natural history correspondence ultimately shows us Notes An extreme example is Charles Darwin, who explored and discussed his ideas about the transformation and evolution of species with his close associates for 15 years before making them public; this correspondence alone accounts for hundreds of letters in the collected correspondence It was also a letter, from Alfred Russel Wallace, which forced him into publication, to avoid being preempted and losing credit for his ideas I am very grateful to Alan Armstrong for making the manuscript of his book available to me, in electronic form, prior to publication Smith (1821) also contains a large correspondence between Ellis and Linnæus, which would be of great interest to anyone concerned with the discourse of natural history; most of Linnæus’s letters, however, were written in either Latin or Swedish, and their analysis thus presents special problems There is also a correspondence between Linnæus and Garden; as an educated man (a physician), Garden wrote to Linnæus in Latin (Ellis wrote in English) The Linnæan correspondence is currently being collected, edited and published On this collecting culture see for instance Gascoigne (1994) The colonial connections of European gardens are documented for instance in Drayton (2000), but are most clearly demonstrated in the correspondence itself, especially that between Bartram and Collinson, as well as the earlier correspondence of James Petiver (not discussed here) These processes have been documented, analysed and placed within a context of European colonialism in a number of recent publications; see in particular Drayton (2000) for a “postcolonial” perspective A good overview of different aspects of the process is given in the volume edited by Miller and Reill (1996) For the seventeenth century, information about the content of meetings is available in Birch (1756–57/1967); for later periods, we have to go to the minutes of the meetings, i.e the Register Books in the Royal Society archives More accurately, we can say that it is only at this point that the two repertoires become strictly separate David Allen, speaking of the practice of natural history at the turn of the seventeenth to the eighteenth century, has suggested the term “colliteration” to describe “that other, less visible social nexus, the semi-permanent circles of correspondents …in the absence of a properly developed periodical literature, private correspondence now had an even greater role to play than ever before or since” (Allen 1976/1994: 17) Collinson and Ellis both lived in London and were both members of the Royal Society They were also both involved in business activities across the Atlantic Their networks thus to some extent coincide Collinson, however, was primarily a collector and mediator, while Ellis’s scientific work, especially on the corallines, is still cited today in the specialised literature 151 "val-r15"> "val-r1"> 152 Ellen Valle 10 The following brief biographical sketches are based on Swem (1949: 18–21) and on the introduction to Bartram (1992) 11 Collinson was a near contemporary of Samuel Johnson, the prototypical representative of the complexly structured “periodic sentence” Generalisations about the “formality” and “elaborateness” of eighteenth-century writing are dangerous; obviously, widely different writing cultures can coexist, depending on the context and function of the writing 12 Redistribution also takes place, though to a much lesser extent, in the opposite direction; Collinson sometimes sent European seeds to Bartram for planting in his garden 13 Collinson was instrumental in bringing about the awarding of a Royal pension to Bartram 14 This was the last exchange between the friends; Collinson died mid-August of that year 15 From a rhetorical point of view, these elevated provenances in part fulfill the functions of acknowledgements, in part they help to establish the credibility and reliability of the information conveyed (Shapin 1994) 16 Just as Ellis and Collinson knew each other in London, Garden and Bartram knew each other in North America; due to the geographical distance between Philadelphia and Charleston, however, their contacts were primarily through correspondence and occasional visits 17 Philip Miller (1691–1771) was Head Gardener at Chelsea Physic Garden and a Fellow of the Royal Society He carried on an active correspondence with many members of the natural history community The first edition of his Gardener’s Dictionary was published in 1731; it went through several editions throughout the eighteenth century, down to 1807 The copy I have examined at the library of the Royal Society is a single-volume large folio, weighing approximately kg; if this was the edition which traveled across the Atlantic and was consulted by naturalists in the field, it indeed speaks volumes for their dedication to natural history 18 Linnæus (1707–1778) was at this time 59 years old; his Systema Naturae had been published in 1735, Species Plantarum in 1753 and Genera Plantarum in 1754 19 On eighteenth-century shifts in typography and orthography, see Wendorf (2003) Sources [Bartram, John] 1992 The Correspondence of John Bartram 1734–1777 Edited by Edmund Berkeley and Dorothy Smith Berkeley Gainesville: University Presses of Florida [Collinson, Peter] 2002 “Forget not Mee & My Garden…”: Selected Letters, 1725–1768, of Peter Collinson, F.R.S Edited by Alan W Armstrong Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society Smith, James Edward 1821 A Selection of the Correspondence of Linnæus, and Other Naturalists, from the Original Manuscripts London: Longman References Allen D.E 1976/1994 The Naturalist in Britain: A Social History Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Atkinson, Dwight 1999 Scientific Discourse in a Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum "val-r2"> "val-r3"> "val-r4"> "val-r5"> "val-r6"> "val-r7"> "val-r8"> "val-r9"> "val-r10"> "val-r11"> "val-r12"> "val-r13"> "val-r14"> "val-r15"> "val-r16"> "val-r17"> "val-r18"> “The pleasure of receiving your favour” Berkenkotter, Carol, and Thomas Huckin 1995 Genre Knowledge and Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Birch, Thomas 1756–57/1967 The History of the Royal Society of London, for Improving of Natural Knowledge Facsimile edition Brussels: Culture et Civilisation Brett-James, Norman 1925 The Life of Peter Collinson London: Edgar G Dunstan & Co Browne, Janet 2002 Charles Darwin: The Power of Place London: Pimlico Dawson, Warren R 1958 The Banks Letters: A Calendar of the Manuscript Correspondence of Sir Joseph Banks preserved in the British Museum, the British Museum (Natural History) and other collections in Great Britain London: British Museum Drayton, Richard 2000 Nature’s Government: Science, Imperial Britain, and the ‘Improvement’ of the World New Haven, CT: Yale University Press Fairclough, Norman 2003 Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research London: Routledge Frost, Alan 1996 The antipodean exchange: European horticulture and imperial designs In: David P Miller and Peter H Reill (eds) Visions of Empire: Voyages, Botany and Representations of Nature Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 58–79 Gascoigne, John 1994 Joseph Banks and the English Enlightenment Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Gilbert, Nigel, and Michael Mulkay 1984 Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientific Discourse Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Hyland, Ken 2000 Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing London: Longman Hyland, Ken 2002 Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing In: John Flowerdew (ed.) Academic Discourse London: Longman, 115–30 Irmscher, Christoph 1999 The Poetics of Natural History: From John Bartram to William James New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press Johns, Adrian 2003 Reading and experiment in the early Royal Society In: Kevin Sharpe and Steven N Zwicker (eds.) Reading, Society and Politics in Early Modern England Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 244–71 Latour, Bruno 1987 Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society Cambridge: Harvard University Press Miller, David P., and Peter H Reill 1996 Visions of Empire: Voyages, Botany and Representations of Nature Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Pratt, Mary Louise 1992 Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation London: Routledge Shapin, Steven 1994 A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England Chicago: University of Chicago Press Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer 1985 Leviathan and the Airpump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Swales, John 1998 Other Floors, Other Voices: A Textology of a Small University Building Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum Swem, Earl 1949 Brothers of the Spade: Correspondence of Peter Collinson, of London, and of John Custis, of Williamsburg, Virginia, 1734–1746 Worcester, MA: American Antiquarian Society Valle, Ellen 1999 A Collective Intelligence: The Life Sciences in the Royal Society as a Scientific Discourse Community, 1665–1965 Turku: University of Turku Press Wendorf, Richard 2003 Abandoning the capital in eighteenth-century London In: Kevin Sharpe and Steven N Zwicker (eds) Reading, Society and Politics in Early Modern England Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 72–98 153 book review Susan Fitzmaurice, The Familiar Letter in Early Modern English: A Pragmatic Approach Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2002 ISBN 1588111865 Reviewed by Monika Fludernik (University of Freiburg) Susan Fitzmaurice (formerly Wright) has produced an enlightening and highly readable study of epistolary discourse from the perspective of (linguistic) pragmatics The book applies insights from speech act theory, politeness studies and from relevance theory to the lively correspondence of several key figures between 1660 and 1750 — Joseph Addison, Aphra Behn, Margaret Cavendish, William Congreve, Mary Pierrepont (later Lady Mary Wortley Montagu), Matthew Prior, Richard Steele and Jonathan Swift The analyses use key concepts of the named pragmatic theories to account for the irony and manipulative strategies observable in the letters of these writers: illocutionary acts, face, implicatures, presupposition, indirection, implicitness Fitzmaurice concentrates in great detail on the establishment of a viable relation to the addressee and the epistolary strategies to which this gives rise She also focuses on the construction of subjectivity in epistolary discourse — an important facet of literary correspondence of the period which can be fruitfully integrated within a larger framework of literary history In fact, Fitzmaurice’s book is a must for those students of eighteenth-century literature and culture who are interested in the manipulations of fact and fiction in the literature contemporary with the rise of the novel (now to be located between Aphra Behn and Fielding) Let me first deal with the linguistic aspects of the study, and I will later turn to the more properly literary facets of the corpus Fitzmaurice’s book is a sad misnomer — it should have been called The Familiar Letter in the Augustan Period, rather than in Early Modern English I, for one, picked up the volume in the expectation of finding pragmatic analyses of the Renaissance letter corpus (Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg’s Corpus of Early English Correspondence), and not exclusively post-Restoration texts (which are now considered to be part of the “long” eighteenth century) Having said that, I have to admit that the choice of material is certainly astute since it covers a distinct phase in the art of letter writing and enables Fitzmaurice to document a significant range of pragmatic contexts In the initial two chapters, which outline basic theorectical material from speech act theory and discuss issues of politeness and the politics of address, Fitzmaurice turns to the pragmatics of indirection and general strategies of addressee manipulation Thus, in Chapter 1, much of the discussion revolves 156 Book Review around a letter by Richard Steele to his wife in which he asks her to send some money and, in the attempt to propitiate the wife’s likely negative reaction, starts with a solicitous enquiry after her health In Chapter 2, the wordy letters of Mary Wortley Montagu from abroad to her daughter in England are analysed from the perspective of preserving and challenging the interlocutors’ face needs Other examples in the chapter include letters by Behn and Cavendish as well as Swift Fitzmaurice particularly highlights the ways in which letters pretend to be constructed as ongoing conversational exchange (she makes a comparison with phone calls on p 19–20) and how the vagaries of the postal service, temporal and spatial distance and the threat of letters being intercepted by the wrong party has important effects on the discourse strategies employed Swift’s playful letter in which he announces his arrival for breakfast but says he will arrive before the letter arrives at its destination illustrates the fact that Augustan practitioners of letter writing are obviously aware of the mechanics of epistolary exchange and clearly able to satirise it (as one might have expected from such masters of satire) Chapter gives a long introduction into Searle’s speech act theory and the distinction between Gricean implicature (intentional violation of a maxim with the clear expectation of the listener’s ability to pick up on the intended meaning) and implicit meaning generation in which addressees think that certain meanings are implied on the sly without this being a case of the violation of conversational maxims Fitzmaurice’s humorous examples come from a dispute between Steele and Swift in a series of ripostes intended as a battle of wits (After all, need we remind ourselves, we are in the age of wit writ large.) Lingustically, Fitzmaurice’s most interesting point here and elsewhere in the book is that the model of speech act theory only accounts for very simple pragmatic situations, whereas the material in hand requires much more sophisticated treatment that gives the complexity, playfulness and irony of the correspondence their due Chapter deals with the genre of the advice letter by discussing Margaret Cavendish’s CCXI Sociable Letters, in which she dispenses medical advice Fitzmaurice shrewdly notes how Cavendish creates a subjective persona in opposition to the anonymity of medical practitioners, and thus also assumes and acquires (not to say, arrogates) an authority in matters medical that by professional authority she clearly lacks The chapter is also a critique of Searle’s sincerity conditions since it outlines a wide range of speech acts (including that of giving advice) which in speech act theory could only be defined with reference to status (somebody knowledgeable gives advice) and effects (the addressee taking the advice) that are appropriate to the given exchange Instead, in a very literary move, Fitzmaurice suggests that the dispensing of advice needs to be compared to the distribution of gifts, a canny interpretation that fits in with Cavendish’s self-image constructed in the correspondence to her fictional addressee(s) Book Review Chapter 5, one of the most successful of the book, compares Addison’s and Swift’s letters to their patrons, John Somers and Charles Montagu, Earl of Halifax The chapter is preceded by a selection of photos, providing the reader with the likenesses of Steele, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Matthew Prior, Jonathan Swift, Congreve, Addison, Dorothy Osborne and Sir William Temple, as taken from paintings of these famous figures Applying for patronage is discussed by Fitzmaurice as a “perlocutionary act” (131), trying to get the patron to provide a job for the artist The examples from the correspondence of Addison, Swift and Congreve analyse with particular elegance how the authors deploy strategies of irony, self-deprecation, paradox and negation in order to disguise the fact that they are asking for money, an eminently face-threatening request On the one hand, the correspondents try to disguise their position as supplicants by downplaying their needs or by discussing the availability of certain jobs in a virtual scenario; on the other hand, they have to be particularly careful not to encroach on the recipient’s negative face needs, veiling the fact that they are actually importuning the great man Fitzmaurice’s enumeration of these writers’ manipulative strategies also holds great interest for the literary scholar Thus, the fiction that a poet is addressing a fellow poet is shown to be a shrewd way of circumnavigating the face-threatening patron-supplicant scenario Chapter focuses on the construction of the addressee in Dorothy Osborne’s love letters to William Temple In her astute analysis of selected passages Fitzmaurice argues convincingly that by creating an image of how she sees William Temple (attributing a number of virtues like kindness to him) she at the same time constructs an image of herself for his benefit, e.g as somebody who particularly appreciates kindness, discretion and wisdom These insights have a wider significance since they demonstrate the necessarily complementary and mutually constructive nature of all attributive discourse, going some way towards explaining why even negative attributions frequently serve to enhance individual or collective processes of identification between interlocutors (cf Lauterbach 2005) Finally in Chapter 7, Fitzmaurice concentrates on the proliferation of unintended epistolary meanings The example this time is the later Mary Wortley Montagu’s correspondence with her future husband in which, to phrase it colloquially, they both manage to put their foot in their mouth whenever they send off the next missive in this history of the wooing process The chapter is therefore also an example of failed epistolary communication (Wortley broke off the relationship after the exchange) — a timely reminder that not all letter writers are able to juggle the demands of epistolary correspondence with equal success Before turning to the substantial merits of the book from a literary perspective, let me note briefly here what I believe are the results of the study for the linguist or historical pragmatics scholar Fitzmaurice’s achievements lie, ex negativo, in her 157 158 Book Review demonstration that traditional speech act theory cannot adequately deal with the corpus which she is analysing She therefore suggests the addition of “pragmatic” speech acts to the Searlean list in order to account for the many quite subtle moves and strategies observable in the posturing and manipulation undertaken by her correspondents Where I found the book a bit disconcerting from a linguistic perspective was the fact that she does not go on to provide a typology of pragmatic speech acts or integrate these with a Gricean or Searlean account of communication Despite the many references to pragmatic concepts — lucidly explained and thus very helpful to the non-linguist literary scholar — she never provides a set of better tools in the analysis of her texts Her readings of the correspondence are subtle and much to the point; but, one starts to wonder, I need to have access to a linguistic framework to conduct this type of analysis? Allow me to illustrate these misgivings with two examples The wonderful analysis of angling for patronage in Chapter makes good use of the concept of face needs However, once we get beyond this general point, the quality of the analysis consists in the application of quite literary terminology and the exercise of what used to be called “close reading” Not that I complain about this as a literary scholar; but, putting on my linguistic hat, I am disappointed to find that indirection, assuming poses of humility, etc., are given no further linguistic status within the pragmatic framework My second example is the final chapter which relies on the tenets of relevance theory However, when we come to an analysis of the misunderstandings between Mary and her Wortley, relevance theory drops from view, and the implications that the correspondents teased from each other’s letters could be formulated in any close reading of these texts without necessarily taking on pragmatics as a theoretical model Having said that, the value of the book lies in demonstrating that literary critics and linguists are ultimately concerned with much the same issues; the limits of formal linguistic analysis shade off into literary critical practice For the literary scholar, this book is in several respects an eye-opener It introduces the reader to a set of key notions from pragmatics that are quite useful in dealing with a large number of literary texts It also, in a sense, shames eighteenth-century cultural studies representatives by doing their job for them — so far nobody in the literary camp has quite got round to devoting such in-depth study to the correspondence of Augustan authors, at least not from the perspective of letter writing as a genre with its own conventions and traditions Fitzmaurice’s book was also an incisive landmark to me personally because it points up the communicational load of the genre, its emphasis on the addressee and on role playing, face-saving and innuendo The pragmatics of epistolary writing which Fitzmaurice explicates in her fine study go a long way towards explaining why early letter writers are such infrequent narrators Their letters are not concerned with telling a story — this is the domain "rev"> "fit"> Book Review of the epistolary novel — but with the creation of intimacy, the jockeying for favour, the creation of positive face, and the battle of wits The epistolary medium made it possible to display oneself, to manipulate the recipient and to fine-tune one’s relationship in a discourse of great verve and subtlety, improving on the hazardous and bungling performance of face-to-face conversation References Lauterbach, Frank 2005 ‘From the slums to the slums’: The Delimitation of Social Identity in Late Victorian Prison Narratives In: Julia Wright and Jason Haslam (eds.) Captivating Subjects: Writing Confinement, Citizenship and Nationhood in the Nineteenth Century Toronto: University of Toronto Press The Corpus of Early English Correspondence Sampler (CEECS) CD-ROM Department of English University of Helsinki, 1998 159 In the series Benjamins Current Topics (BCT) the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: Pöchhacker, Franz and Miriam Shlesinger (eds.): Healthcare Interpreting Discourse and Interaction ca.€175€pp Expected May 2007 Teubert, Wolfgang (ed.): Text Corpora and Multilingual Lexicography ca.€170€pp Expected May 2007 Penke, Martina and Anette Rosenbach (eds.): What Counts as Evidence in Linguistics The case of innateness ca.€280€pp Expected April 2007 Bamberg, Michael (ed.): Narrative – State of the Art 2007 vi,€270€pp Anthonissen, Christine and Jan Blommaert (eds.): Discourse and Human Rights Violations 2007 x,€142€pp Hauf, Petra and Friedrich Försterling (eds.): Making Minds The shaping of human minds through social context 2007 x,€275€pp Chouliaraki, Lilie (ed.): The Soft Power of War 2007 x,€144€pp Ibekwe-SanJuan, Fidelia, Anne Condamines and M Teresa Cabré Castellví (eds.): Application-Driven Terminology Engineering 2007 vii,€202€pp Nevalainen, Terttu and Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen (eds.): Letter Writing 2007 viii,€163€pp ... 5.1 Letters from Sweden to the Hanse 5.1.1 Letters in Latin a Representatives of the Swedish crown writing to the Councils These letters from the fourteenth century, written in Latin, place the. .. to the recipient’s or writer’s previous letters or letters written by a third party, references to future or planned letters, and references to the current letter The receipt of the preceding letter. .. Swedish, on the other hand, was still the language of administration in the realm It was used in the legal code as early as the thirteenth century, and in the middle of the fourteenth century the king
- Xem thêm -

Xem thêm: The languagelab library letter writing , The languagelab library letter writing